Create Discussion

Where do you stand on abortion?

Abortion, in my opinion, is the biggest problem in America. I am very against it and would like to know your thoughts on it. If you're for it, why? If your against it, why? If you're unsure, what questions do you have?

Comments

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

My logical reasoning is as follows:
1) It is morally wrong to murder an innocent human being
2) An unborn baby is an innocent human being
3) Therefore it is morally wrong to murder an innocent human being.
4) Legality reflects morality
5) Therefore it should be illegal to kill an unborn baby, since to do so would murder an innocent human being.
5) Abortion is defined as the predetermined killing of a fetus (Latin for child/ small child) or unborn baby.
6) The definition of murder is a malicious predetermined killing.
7) Abortion is therefore murder, and murders and unborn baby.
8) Therefore Abortion should be illegal.

[user=29851512]Caroline Kenney[/user]

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user] I agree!! Though some would argue that the fetus is not a human being, they are wrong. Abortion is flat out murder.

[user=30733176]《 Half Step 》[/user]

[user=29851512]Caroline Kenney[/user] funny how it's illegal to poach a turtle/bald eagle/whatever egg but not a human fetus.

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user] But in the case where the unborn fetus has some sort of condition that is killing both it and the mother...what then? Is that not morally wrong as well for the fetus to kill the mother?
Abortion is not necessarily malicious. In the cases of health and birth complications, late term abortions are most often done because the fetus cannot be saved, but the mother still can. Is it not wrong to sentence both to death when at least one could survive? Is the forbidding of abortions in cases such as this not society maliciously predetermining the mother's death? Is that not murder of the mother?
I do agree with you to an extent. Abortion should not be widely allowed for just anyone, and certainly not for any person who just wakes up and randomly just feels like aborting a child. But in cases of health, assault, or economic issues, we do need to reconsider legality, morals, and, as you describe, what would be murder.

[user=29851512]Caroline Kenney[/user]

[user=lareinedeslapins]lareinedeslapins[/user] Could you give me an example of a condition where the unborn baby is killing the mother?

[user=15474231]lareinedeslapins[/user]

[user=Caroline Kenney]Caroline Kenney[/user] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html
https://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-4-3977441-Apr2018/
That's the big one that I know of at the moment, but if I feel like it I may add more.
Laws against abortions are so restrictive in some places that this fetus was literally [i]already dead [/i]inside its mother, and they [i]still[/i] refused to let her go through abortion procedures to have it removed. The fetus was [i]rotting [/i]and [i]infecting her[/i] inside of her body, and they refused to remove it. And because of that, she died. The child inside of her was unsalvageable, but she at least could have survived if they had gone through abortion or induced labor. But because of Irish amendments and laws, they refused to give her the treatment that she so desperately needed. And now she is dead.
Do we really hold unborn children in such high esteem that we stop valuing the lives of already-born mothers and human beings who carry them into this world?

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=lareinedeslapins]lareinedeslapins[/user]
[quote] But in the case where the unborn fetus has some sort of condition that is killing both it and the mother...what then? Is that not morally wrong as well for the fetus to kill the mother? [/quote]
The fetus kills the mother indirectly. The fetus did not ask for this complication, and as a life form I'll say probably doesn't want it either. It does not kill the mother, the condition does.
[quote] Abortion is not necessarily malicious. In the cases of health and birth complications, late term abortions are most often done because the fetus cannot be saved, but the mother still can. Is it not wrong to sentence both to death when at least one could survive? [/quote]
In the original scenario both will die through inaction, so saying that we sentence both to death misconstrues the issue. Abortion directly murders one of the lives to spare the other. If we consider both life forms of equal value, then why would you consider it wrong to murder the mother to save the child?
[quote] I do agree with you to an extent. Abortion should not be widely allowed for just anyone, and certainly not for any person who just wakes up and randomly just feels like aborting a child. But in cases of health, assault, or economic issues, we do need to reconsider legality, morals, and, as you describe, what would be murder. [/quote]
I've already presented an argument for health.
As for assault:
Why would you murder a baby because an evil man assaulted you? if you were to kill anyone you would Kill the man, not the baby. Of course I'd say don't do either.
As for economic issues:
I will never come to a point where I think a green piece of paper is worth more then a life. That is essentially what this issue boils down too. In the vast majority of these cases (pardon my bluntness) it was because two people had no self control, and so they are trying to to face the consequences of their actions and ultimately justifying murder.
Please understand I am not trying to be provocative, I'm just stating things as they are.
Regardless, none of these scenarios changes my original logical thesis, and so my argument reminds sound.

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user] I agree with this, and in addition, I would argue that we are not arguing about specific reasons for abortion, but general, open house if you had a thing with your bf and don't want to take responsibility for your actions kind of abortions.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]
I would argue that we’re arguing each and every reason for an abortion.

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]

okay, so we are talking about the killing of an unborn human in general.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

There is already at least two discussions on this lol

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] ikr.....

[user=30733176]《 Half Step 》[/user]

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] sometimes those discussion get messy and to make it more organized and less difficult to sift through, new discussions might be ok.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=《 Half Step 》]《 Half Step 》[/user] and then the messiness may carry over and people may mix them up and confuse everyone else.

[user=30733176]《 Half Step 》[/user]

True, but they're new. They probably didn't know. *shrugs*

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

I'm posting what I said earlier in another discussion, with some key editing.
[b]The Scientific Case:[/b]
Biologically speaking, it is a scientific fact that the mother and fetus are distinct individuals:
--Many women carry babies with different blood types than their own.
--A woman may be carrying a male child.
--The fetus has a DNA fingerprint distinct from the mother.
--If the embryo of black parents is transplanted into a white mother, she will still have a black baby.
--Early in development the baby clearly has its own arms, feet, heart, skin, and eyes.
Some pro-choice people believe that the fetus is not human. A simple fact of life is helpful here: beings reproduce after their own kind. As Greg Koukl states, “A new being can only come from living parents and these parents reproduce according to their kind. Dogs beget dogs, lizards beget lizards, bacteria beget bacteria, etc.”
Since beings reproduce according to their kind, something that is produced through the union of two humans must also be human. Therefore, at the moment of conception the unborn is a living, individual human being separate from the mother.
[b]The Moral Case:[/b]
When does the fetus become human?
Most people agree that the fetus is either [i]already[/i] is a human being from the point of conception or [i]becomes[/i] a human being sometime during the process of gestation. Nearly all would agree that by the time the fetus is born, it is a human being with full human rights. Thus, the central question under debate is: When does the fetus become a human being? Many suggest that no one can know for sure when life begins. It is often argued that the issue cannot be solved conclusively, so it should be left up to personal choice. In other words, since scientists and philosophers have not come to common agreement about the moment when life starts, it should be left up to the discretion of the individual. While this may seem appealing initially, this approach is highly problematic, and here is why. Consider this example: If I were going to blow up a building but was unsure if there was anyone inside, should I proceed? Of course not. In the words of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, “Anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it.” Therefore, if there is any uncertainty about when life begins we should err on the side of life. The benefit of the doubt goes to the life-saver. The burden of proof rests on the life-taker to show that there is no presence of life.
[b]Important differences between unborn and born[/b]
Pro-choice advocates often cite these differences as support for their position. While these are all genuine differences, they are not significant enough to deny the valuable human nature of the fetus.
[b]Size:[/b] The unborn are clearly smaller than newborns. But, does size have anything to do with the right to life? Just because the fetus is smaller than adults does not mean it is not a valuable human being.
[b]Level of development:[/b] The unborn are less developed than newborns and adults. But this difference has no relevance to its essential nature as a human being. Are adults more human than elementary school children because they have developed sexually? Are mentally handicapped people less human simply because they have not fully developed?
[b]Environment:[/b] The unborn lives in a different location than the newborn -- in the mother’s womb. But what does the fact that the fetus lives in the womb have to do with its being human? Do you stop being human when you change your location? How can [i]where[/i] you are determine [i]what[/i] you are?
[b]Degree of dependency:[/b] The unborn is 100% dependent on its mother for survival. Why should that fact make it less human? If your humanity hinged on how dependent you were, then what about the toddlers, the handicapped, and those on dialysis machines? Are they still human? If we say that the unborn aren’t human because they are more dependent than us, we deny the same human rights to others, outside of the womb.
Other arguments that have been used are:
[b]Women have the right to do what they want to their own bodies.[/b]
It has been established that the unborn are not part of the woman’s body. What’s more, no man or woman has the right to do [i]whatever[/i] they want with their bodies. They do not have the right to hold dangerous, illegal drugs, they don’t have the right to hurt another person with their body. A woman’s right to her own body is not absolute -- it is limited when it brings harm to another human being.
[b]If abortion becomes illegal, women will be forced into back alley’s.[/b]
This argument can be debunked with one question. Does society have the responsibility to make it safe to kill innocent people? If the unborn are indeed human beings, then this argument has little force.
[b]Bringing these children into the world can be an economic drain.[/b]
When humans become expensive, can we kill him? If this were true, should we then dispose of other people in society who are costly, such as the homeless? If the unborn are human then the cost is irrelevant to its right of life.
[b]Women should not be forced to bring unwanted children into the world.[/b]
When people become unwanted, can we kill them? Dr. Scott Rae observes, “The fact that a child is unwanted is more of a commentary on the parents than the child, and if the fetus is a human, whether it is wanted or not is irrelevant to its right of life.” Also, seriously, if you don't want a baby, use protection at the very least.
[b]Women should not be forced to carry a baby resulting from rape.[/b]
This is the toughest case to argue against. The reasons for aborting a baby in this instance are understandable. As emotionally devastating as it is for a woman to carry a baby under these circumstances, the statement itself avoids the real issue: Why should the innocent child pay for the guilty man’s crime? Should the law permit the murder of an innocent being to relieve the mental anguish of a trauma such as rape? While we need to show incredible love and understanding to a woman going through all that trauma, we must not compromise on one key fact: The unborn, human or not, is valuable. The number of pregnancies resulting from rape are in fact, miniscule, and the vast majority of such victims do choose to carry the baby. Abortion cases from rape are very rare. Even so, I think this should be dealt with case by case, mental health ties in to this and the below one
[b]Women should not be forced to carry a baby when their own life is at stake.[/b]
Here is where my opinion has changed. A person has the right to defend themselves when they are in danger, and they may use violence, or even kill in extreme circumstances, in order to protect themselves from physical attack. This can apply even when the person causing the danger is entirely innocent of any bad intent, completely unaware that they are causing a danger, or is in some other way not responsible for being a danger. Thus if a fetus (entirely innocently) endangers the life of a mother, it's argued that the mother has the right to abort it. A person may also have the right to kill when threatened with severe harm but not actual death (e.g. a pregnancy that would permanently damage the mother but not kill her). And a person may get someone else to take the necessary action to protect them (e.g. the doctor who performs the abortion). Maybe it's not a good thing, killing an innocent to save the mother, but think about it this way: A single mother with two young children is pregnant by a man who left her subsequently, her life is threatened due to the pregnancy, she risks it and does not have an abortion, both her and the fetus die, and her living children have no parents and resort to what I can imagine a rather crappy life. The other scenario is where the mother aborts the baby, lives on and raises the children she has already birthed and perhaps more in the future. My own mother has told me a story of her friends life being threatened by a pregnancy, but she didn't abort, and they both lived. This is risky and incredibly unlikely. This is a chance that shouldn't be taken when there are two lives at risk, you have to kill one to save the other.

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]
[quote] Here is where my opinion has changed. A person has the right to defend themselves when they are in danger, and they may use violence, or even kill in extreme circumstances, in order to protect themselves from physical attack. This can apply even when the person causing the danger is entirely innocent of any bad intent, completely unaware that they are causing a danger, or is in some other way not responsible for being a danger. Thus if a fetus (entirely innocently) endangers the life of a mother, it's argued that the mother has the right to abort it. [/quote]
Oh boy........
Self defense is not defined as defending oneself, but defending oneself against malicious attack. The baby is not the one attacking in this scenario, and therefore cannot be the one to suffer the counter attack. You would attack the disease, not the baby. The baby again is not the reason the mother is dying, because the baby is not actively seeking to hurt the mother. It is the condition that is actively seeking to hurt both the baby and the mother.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user] That's true, I guess I don't believe it is morally right to kill the baby when it's not directly causing harm, but it must be the correct decision. I would rather have one live human than two dead, especially when the alive one can probably still reproduce. I still think it's erm...less not okay for a mother to abort in this instance, her life is in danger, the baby is threatening her life, [i]indirectly, [/i]and definitely not maliciously, but she ought to have the right to protect herself.

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

she has the right to protect herself but by trying to destroy the illness in the baby and her, not the baby.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user] and if the illness can't be stopped? I agree an abortion should never be the first option in any scenario, and should be treated as a last resort in this scenario.

[user=7532366]~Lizzapie~[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] If the illness can't be stopped, the answer isn't murdering the baby. A C-section is the best solution. There are ways to help an ill, prematurely born baby survive.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=~Lizzapie~]~Lizzapie~[/user] And if this is all before a successful C-section can be performed? Also there are surely ways and a chance that an ill, premature baby may survive, but what are the odds?

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]
[quote] and if the illness can't be stopped? [/quote]
Does not bring any better justification for murder. It would be better in my opinion for two innocent people to die of natural causes then for one to murder the other.
The only way I would justify an 'abortion' is if the baby was already dead and needed to be removed, but I don't really consider that an abortion because there is nothing alive to abort.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]
[quote]Does not bring any better justification for murder. It would be better in my opinion for two innocent people to die of natural causes then for one to murder the other. [/quote]
Well I believe it does. The only difference I see between the death penalty and this abortion scenario is that the baby is not acting malicious, and is unaware that its life is threatening the mother. We execute the criminal in order to protect innocent individuals from coming to harm by the hands of the criminal. Yes, the criminal is malicious, but technically you're killing him in an act of self-defence, because it's apparently not murder if you kill someone who is causing extreme harm and peril to another (at least it's not murder when it comes to law-enforcement).
The baby is not the cause of the harm, it is indirectly threatening the mother, completely unaware. It's certainly not fair to abort, but what's necessary is rarely fair. What's more, if the mother did have other young children, especially if she is a single mother, why should she risk her life (and potentially her children's lives) in order to give birth, something that she can likely do again, with safety.

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]
[quote] Well I believe it does. The only difference I see between the death penalty and this abortion scenario is that the baby is not acting malicious, and is unaware that its life is threatening the mother. [/quote]
it is not the baby that is killing the mother, it is the disease....... I've said that multiple times. Saying the baby is killing the mother misconstrues it to say that the baby has malicious intent which is not the case. Furthermore, aren't you against capital punishment? However even if we were to look at it like the baby it would legally be accidental manslaughter, which doesn't receive capital punishment (generally only a year in prison). Both legally and morally, intent always makes all the difference.
The disease cannot be described as malicious because it is only doing what it was created to do, however since the disease does not have any human rights, it is perfectly ethical to do our best to destroy it.
And like I said, two people are dying of [i]natural[/i] causes.
[quote] We execute the criminal in order to protect innocent individuals from coming to harm by the hands of the criminal [/quote]
We execute the criminal primarily because he already has hurt innocent individuals, not because he could hurt more. This is not murder because the intent is for justice.
[quote] Yes, the criminal is malicious, but technically you're killing him in an act of self-defence, because it's apparently not murder if you kill someone who is causing extreme harm and peril to another (at least it's not murder when it comes to law-enforcement). [/quote]
oh sure, but the baby [i]is not the one causing extreme harm and peril[/i]. It is the disease. The disease is also causing [i]the baby extreme harm and peril.[/i] or perhaps the baby is perfectly healthy and it is a disease or defect in the mother [i]which is causing both extreme harm and peril[/i]. Should we then murder the mother to save the baby? If you consider a disease within a person that threatens another's life to be equivalent to that person threatening another's life then you have no reason that we shouldn't murder the mother in this scenario.
[quote] The baby is not the cause of the harm, it is indirectly threatening the mother, completely unaware. [/quote]
I argue it is not indirect. The disease is not equivalent to or even comparable to the baby. your basing your argument on a false logical thesis. You seem to think that the disease is similar to the gun with which a person point towards another's head. It is the gun that kills but it is the person who pulled the trigger, or even someone telling someone else to murder a man. The problem is that in this case, the baby [i]did not take any course of action to trigger any response that would become threatening. [/i]the baby did not tell the disease to kill him/her or the mother.
[quote] It's certainly not fair to abort, but what's necessary is rarely fair. [/quote]
This is your excuse to murder a baby........ really........
oh sure, it could be 'necessary' to kill a baby because my own life is at stake.....
it could be 'necessary' for me to let my brother die a long and torturous death because otherwise they'll do the same thing to me.
it could be 'necessary' for me to murder millions of my own countrymen to insure they don't rebel and overthrow my kingdom and subsequently kill me (Joseph Stalin).
See my point yet?
[quote] why should she risk her life (and potentially her children's lives) in order to give birth, something that she can likely do again, with safety. [/quote]
Well, Why should she ensure her own life by murdering one of her own children?
Is human life so invaluable as to say "oh we can just make another one". Is the very humanity of the baby not strong enough in your mind that it has worth?
Your logic here is literally "Oh we can make another one" like the baby is just a toy in a factory...........
Do you not see how that is terrifying?
(pardon my pathos)

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]
[quote]it is not the baby that is killing the mother, it is the disease....... I've said that multiple times. Saying the baby is killing the mother misconstrues it to say that the baby has malicious intent which is not the case. Furthermore, aren't you against capital punishment? However even if we were to look at it like the baby it would legally be accidental manslaughter, which doesn't receive capital punishment (generally only a year in prison). Both legally and morally, intent always makes all the difference.[/quote]
In the part that you quoted I said that the baby was threatening the mother, not necessarily killing her. The baby is not malicious and is not directly causing harm, but it's very existence is threatening the mother.
I'm against capital punishment unless we're talking about a global terrorist, otherwise it's not helpful.
[quote]We execute the criminal primarily because he already has hurt innocent individuals, not because he could hurt more. This is not murder because the intent is for justice. [/quote]
That's not the primary reason I heard in that debate, and no matter how noble the reasons may be, it's not justice, because it's not preventing crime from others. Justice isn't about the fairness of a punishment, but it's about preventing crime and ultimately ending it.
[quote]oh sure, but the baby [i]is not the one causing extreme harm and peril[/i]. It is the disease. The disease is also causing [i]the baby extreme harm and peril.[/i] or perhaps the baby is perfectly healthy and it is a disease or defect in the mother [i]which is causing both extreme harm and peril[/i]. Should we then murder the mother to save the baby? If you consider a disease within a person that threatens another's life to be equivalent to that person threatening another's life then you have no reason that we shouldn't murder the mother in this scenario. [/quote]
Because in my scenario, the mother already has children that she needs to care for, where would they be without their mother? What are the odds that the baby will survive healthily if you murder the mother compared to the odds that the mother will survive if the baby is murdered?
[quote]I argue it is not indirect. The disease is not equivalent to or even comparable to the baby. your basing your argument on a false logical thesis. You seem to think that the disease is similar to the gun with which a person point towards another's head. It is the gun that kills but it is the person who pulled the trigger, or even someone telling someone else to murder a man. The problem is that in this case, the baby [i]did not take any course of action to trigger any response that would become threatening.[/i] the baby did not tell the disease to kill him/her or the mother.[/quote]
My point was not that the baby is killing the mother, and therefore ought to be put to death, my point was the baby's existence itself is putting the mother's life in danger, partly due to the disease weakening her.
[quote]oh sure, it could be 'necessary' to kill a baby because my own life is at stake.....[/quote]
[quote]it could be 'necessary' for me to let my brother die a long and torturous death because otherwise they'll do the same thing to me.it could be 'necessary' for me to murder millions of my own countrymen to insure they don't rebel and overthrow my kingdom and subsequently kill me (Joseph Stalin). [/quote]
No, that wasn't my point, and certainly not my reasoning behind abortion.
Note that the scenario that I gave involved a single mother with two or more young, born children. She chooses to kill the unborn baby because she wants to live in order to properly raise her already born children, and also so she has the chance to reproduce again. She's killing [b]one baby [/b]for the good of her [b]two or more born children[/b], she's [b]not "[/b]killing millions of her countrymen to insure they don't rebel and overthrow my kingdom and subsequently kill me". She's killing one to save the many, it's quite the opposite of the Stalin comparison.
[quote]Is human life so invaluable as to say "oh we can just make another one". Is the very humanity of the baby not strong enough in your mind that it has worth?[/quote]
No, human life is not [i]that [/i]invaluable, but from the start I used a scenario that put forward that the needs of the many (the mother and her young children) outweigh the needs of the few (in this case, one, unborn baby).

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]
[quote] In the part that you quoted I said that the baby was threatening the mother, not necessarily killing her. The baby is not malicious and is not directly causing harm, but it's very existence is threatening the mother. [/quote]
No, the babies existence is not threatening the mother, because under normal circumstances the babies existence does threatening the mother. It is the disease that is threatening the mother creating an abnormal circumstance. therefore it would be the disease's existence that threatens the mother. and in light of that, we have every right to directly kill the disease, but no right to kill the baby to indirectly kill the disease. We also have no right to kill the disease if in doing so, we know for sure that it will kill the baby as well.
[quote] I'm against capital punishment unless we're talking about a global terrorist, otherwise it's not helpful. [/quote]
Then don't compare abortion to capital punishment because it will undermine your argument.
[quote] That's not the primary reason I heard in that debate, and no matter how noble the reasons may be, it's not justice, because it's not preventing crime from others. Justice isn't about the fairness of a punishment, but it's about preventing crime and ultimately ending it.
[/quote]
perhaps if there are only humans, but think about it, if it were the case that justice is in preventing crime from continuing to happen (not punishing for the previous crime), then if there is a God who is omnipresent, and as we see since crime continues to happen, then God is not just. If God is Justice, and God is omnipresent and knows all, then when he says he is just, he is just, and any argument that contradicts it is wrong. Therefore, justice [i]is [/i]about the crime committed and not future crimes. If you don't believe in God, then we cannot come to an agreement on this issue, and this part of the debate will become worthless.
[quote] because in my scenario, the mother already has children that she needs to care for, where would they be without their mother? What are the odds that the baby will survive healthily if you murder the mother compared to the odds that the mother will survive if the baby is murdered?
[/quote]
My argument is that [i]regardless of any external conflicts we do not have the right to murder[/i]. your justification for the murder is using the same logic as those who have an abortion because they don't think they can support the child, but just to a different degree.
As for the odds I couldn't care less. If anyone has even the smallest chance at life they should be allowed to take it. It certainty is better then the zero chance you give them with an abortion.
[quote] My point was not that the baby is killing the mother, and therefore ought to be put to death, my point was the baby's existence itself is putting the mother's life in danger, partly due to the disease weakening her. [/quote]
Your equivocating the baby to the disease. The only justification for killing the baby is if you view [i]the baby as the disease[/i] which is sickening....
If it is the disease actively killing the baby, then the disease should be killed.
If there was some circumstance where the baby has a knife in the womb is and actually trying to stab the mother then sure, perhaps you have a case for an abortion (provided you support the death penalty), [i]however[/i] we have not seen any kind of case like that.
It is illogical to equate the baby to the disease, and if somehow, it was a developmental disorder that was causing complications the disorder is separate from the baby [i]still[/i] and if treating the disorder kills the baby then we shouldn't kill the baby.
[quote] Note that the scenario that I gave involved a single mother with two or more young, born children. She chooses to kill the unborn baby because she wants to live in order to properly raise her already born children, and also so she has the chance to reproduce again. She's killing [b]one baby[/b] for the good of her [b]two or more born children[/b] [/quote]
Ever did the trolley scenario? Well in this case, it is like where you have the train coming at five kids playing along the field (who happen to be your nephews), and there is you and a fat guy (who happens to be your husband) by the train but with a twist. You can only commit suicide or order the fat guy to push you off, or push the fat guy off. And then you choose to push the fat guy off (not like the situation where you could only push the fat guy off).
It is from Jesus own words that:
[h][b]Luke 15:3-7[/b] [b]King James Version (KJV)[/b][/h]
[b]3 [/b]And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
[b]4 [/b]What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[b]5 [/b]And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
[b]6 [/b]And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
[b]7 [/b]I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
And from God's own words that he said:
[b]Isaiah 49:15[/b] [b]English Standard Version (ESV)[/b]
[b]15 [/b]“Can a woman forget her nursing child,
that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget,
yet I will not forget you.
[b]Jeremiah 1:5[/b] [b]English Standard Version (ESV)[/b]
[b]5 [/b]“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
If this is what God thinks about the unborn, about one person, should we not value them the same as Him?
If you do not believe in God could you at least understand that those who do view each individual like this?
[quote] No, human life is not [i]that[/i] invaluable, but from the start I used a scenario that put forward that the needs of the many (the mother and her young children) outweigh the needs of the few (in this case, one, unborn baby). [/quote]
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
We were made in God's own image. yes, we are [i]that[/i] invaluable.
Also in my view there is a heaven and a hell.
Would it not be better for two to die naturally and spend eternity in bliss, then for one to spend an eternity in bliss after a time of torture, and the other to spend eternity is torture after a time of safety?

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] I also think it's kind of disgusting that even some abortion doctors know what they're doing and still do it just for the money whilst making snide jokes about it behind those women's backs.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=Corporal_Heath54]Corporal_Heath54[/user] And you know this happens how?

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] I have heard of people talking about recordings being taken from two "popular" abortion doctors talking about their career, who I believe were direct listeners to the recording. Of course, I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I have heard of evidence besides this pointing towards the fact that these doctors don't actually believe that the embryos that they are killing are not alive. I am not saying I agree with this because of confirmation bias; they have a motive for hiding this, because they want to provide "rationale" to the impregnated women who come into their clinics wanting to get rid of their future responsibility.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=Corporal_Heath54]Corporal_Heath54[/user]
1. I can barely understand what you're trying to say half the time
[quote]I have heard of people talking about recordings being taken from two "popular" abortion doctors talking about their career[/quote]
2. "heard people talking about recordings of doctors talking about their career" I can not trust this.
3. If a minor is impregnated as a result of rape, why should it be her burden or responsibility to carry the child?

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.
1. that was a pretty plain sentence, just saying.
2. I didn't expect you to trust this, and I am genuinely sorry I do not have this video, because if I did I would gladly and readily show it here.
3. I was not speaking about that case, but more about the situation of premarital sex and sex that wound up confirming a presence in the womb. The case of knowing what they are doing and what it results in, and still doing it, and then neatly getting rid of the "unwanted byproduct".

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=Corporal_Heath54]Corporal_Heath54[/user]
1. my first complaint was not on the sentence below, it was for the whole paragraph, is english your first language?
2. Well how would I know what case your talking about when you yourself apparently haven't found or watched this supposedly true recording?

[user=29494550]Corporal_Heath54[/user]

[user=♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]
1. whooffh yes it is. I'm sorry if it sounds awkward, computers I've never been good at talking on.
2. Well, I will be honest, I would have to find videos about that, and such a specific thing will be such a cherry to pick, so let me get back to you someday in the near future if I survive highschool.

[user=23903191]Jaybird1[/user]

Okay, can I ask a question for everyone?
How many of you are pro-choice?
(Not trying to separate or publicly point out, or shame anyone. Just answer the question so that I can ask the next question.)

[user=Jaybird1]Jaybird1[/user]
Being pro-life means to be against the unjust taking of human life. Just means based on or behaving according to what is morally right or fair. Unjust is the opposite. I would disagree with just meaning behaving according to what is fair, I believe it is just to end one life instead of letting two die, but it's certainly not fair. I am pro-life whilst believing that it can be just to kill a baby for the mothers sake.

[user=23903191]Jaybird1[/user]

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]
Yes, trust me, I know what being pro-life means. :)
And yeah, I understand your point of view of saving one life then letting both die. I don’t think I personally have an opinion about that scenario, as I haven’t done enough research yet.

[user=29851512]Caroline Kenney[/user]

[user=Jaybird1]Jaybird1[/user] I am pro-choice, the choices of pregnancy, adoption, and contraception. I am not pro-abortion. There's a difference.

[user=23903191]Jaybird1[/user]

[user=29851512]Caroline Kenney[/user]
Very big difference.
But the question I was gonna ask was:
Have you ever seen an abortion? Have you every seen the baby on the sonogram be aborted? Because there have been many strong pro-choice people, and when they see what an abortion is and what it looks like, they’ve switched to pro-life instantly. No one can deny how horrific abortion is. I think deep down, our Conscience knows that abortion is not ok.

[user=19991161]Astronix2[/user] usually those for abortion use the label pro choice. I don't believe he used it like that

[user=19991161]Astronix2[/user]

[user=23903191]Jaybird1[/user] I'm pro-choice

[user=11227431]♩♫𝓂𝓃𝓂𝓌𝑒𝓇𝓉♫♩[/user]

[user=19991161]Astronix2[/user]
What is your logical reasons for it?

[user=30733176]《 Half Step 》[/user]

I will say my opinion later, but there is a new movie coming out called, "Unplanned". It's rated R, but I encourage you to watch it. If you're against abortion, this could give you more info about it. If you are pro abortion, it's a way to look at the other side.

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=《 Half Step 》]《 Half Step 》[/user] I watched it last weekend, it's a good film and I was going to recommend it as well, and the R rating is well earned for the right reasons. Doesn't change my opinion in the single mother scenario however.

[user=30733176]《 Half Step 》[/user]

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user] understood

[user=27110841]♬𝔅𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔩𝔢♬[/user]

[user=30733176]《 Half Step 》[/user]
I actually take it back it’s not a good film. It’s a sloppy film made as anti-abortion propaganda, committing many fallacies in trying to convince pro-choicers, namely the appeal to pity. It will never convince an intellectual because it wasn’t meant for intellectuals.

About this group

This group will host all of this site's debating, especially to avoid cluttering up other groups with our debates. You can join no matter what your beliefs are.

Rules:- Be courteous. No insulting (in addition to people that also applies to beliefs, to a degree), profanity, or general hating. Be reasonable and fair (Civility is the goal here). Don't look down on someone because of their beliefs as we're all equals here. Make sure you target the beliefs themselves, not the people. Don't get too personal, and BE MATURE.- Don't be afraid to say "I don't know." - keep the discussions on debates only. Advertising scores is strictly prohibited. Also, Try to keep the topics as clean as possible, with the titles of neutral opinion. -respond to all opinions as valid, even if they look completely ridiculous.

Let's stick to the rules, because us admins don't like to have to enforce stuff. If you feel like a member is being unruly, or, if us moderators aren't doing our jobs well enough, PM us by going to our profile pages and clicking on the mail icon (but don't create a discussion about it). Here are some suggestions to help you check whether your comment follows the rules listed above:

-use logical and coherent arguments with evidence to back up your claims.-Don't let emotions overtake your ability to clearly think and respond to arguments. If you get emotional, don't post, it is probably the quickest way you'll say something you will regret later on. -Try to learn something from the other debaters. Although you are probably not going to change their minds about the subject, in a successful debate you will end up becoming extremely well informed in what their beliefs are, giving a better understanding of life and the world around you. -view all opinions as valid, even if they look completely ridiculous. -Double check all of your posts before sending them. Sometimes in the heat of the moment we might type something we wouldn't want other people to see later.